Synergies Between Game Styles: Simulationist - Gamist - Storytelling

[Balesir]

I'll tell you what. Let's assume the narrative is consistent. The Gamist would like the world to "make sense" in order for actions to be meanginful. If this is achieved, Gamism converges with Simulationism, as the world perfectly represents the sort of world in which Gamist agendas are worthwhile. Similarly, Narrativism, if successful, ends up simulating the exploration of a theme, as the theme would be explored in fiction or in real life. If Simulation is about "the right to dream," all successful Gamist and Narrativist approaches become Simulationist.

<snippage>

There's not really much I can say in addition to what pemerton and chaochou have said already, here. You don't seem to be using the same definitions of the agendas as are explained on The Forge, and you don't appear to have read the essays on them at all (either that or you have forgotten almost everything in them).

EDIT: Plus Edwards conception of Narration is muddled in Modernism, that is, literary criticism of the early part of the last century.

In some of the stuff Edwards writes about themes and so on, I agree. But, as pemerton says, his practical applications of the idea - particularly with the working of Bangs and Kickers in Sorceror, I think - give a much better view of the real scope of the agenda than his stuff about literary criticism.

I was writing from my experiences, but I don't claim that those are definitive. My experience is that meeting the challenge and introducing premise or theme is very rarely discouraged. Protecting the integrity of the sim is constant and ongoing. Not a dig at sims. Played with a sim agenda a lot and done my fair share of protecting.

Fair enough. Up until around the mid-1990's I might have shared that view (based on my experience), but latterly I have seen Sim play with a somewhat "looser" approach to scope and possibilities. I have found I really like play that tries to approach pure "let's pretend" and exploration of "what if" ideas, informed by thorough research about thought on the ideas themselves (e.g. exploring a pseudo-medieval setting such as Hârn with background reading in medieval economics, cultures and combat).

I wonder, though - Does even purist-for-system sim have a tendency towards becoming GM-driven just because, in practice, the GM becomes the custodian of the "truth" about the world and its internal causal processs (whether mechanical processes in Traveller, or cultural processes in RQ)?

It certainly can, but I don't think it must. Universalis is an example of a system that can support Sim play (with the right group and agreement that this is what the aim is) and yet by it's very nature avoids this issue (there is no GM in Universalis - if you haven't read/got it I can thoroughly recommend it as it's not expensive).

It's easy to find games that purport to do little more than simulate an imaginary world; the reason to do so is supplied by the players. It is essentially impossible to find an RPG that purports to tell a story, or present challenges, that does not exhaustively (though perhaps not finitely) define a world in which Gamist or Narrativist priorities are not the assumed reality.

Sorry, wrong. Here is some homework reading for you: PrimeTime Adventures, Universalis, The Pool, 3:16 and Theatrix. In no particular order.

Here's my impossible thing before breakfast: Create a Narrative game that explores a moral theme, but which does not Simulate a moral world.

LOL Oh, come on! This only flies in the face of over 3,000 years of drama and philosophy that has explored moral themes, despite the fact that we have no ultimate proof whether the "real" world is a "moral world" or not. That's kind of the point, in fact.

 

[pemerton]

To say Narrative play hinges on choice, and not exploring the world for it's own sake, is pretending that somehow narration doesn't require a text.

<snip>

Here's my impossible thing before breakfast: Create a Narrative game that explores a moral theme, but which does not Simulate a moral world.

Narration does not require a text. It creates a text.

There is a difference between (i) reciting something already written, (ii) continuing with a piece, or rewriting it, in a way intended to preserve faithfulness to the original, and (iii) taking something already written and adding something to it that makes it worthwhile in your eyes.

The practical proof of this, in the context of RPGs, consists in debates about the legitimacy of metagaming by players, or about the importance of preserving consistency of character in PCs. These are real debates, that mark out real differences in the orientation and goals of play.

To the extent that this puts me at odds with some elements of post-modernist literary theory, I'm prepared to wear that. As I said upthread, I remain something of a modernist.

EDIT: Also, what [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] said at the end of his last post. You don't have to go all existentialist, nor all Humean, to note the practical contrast between attempting evaluation and attempting observation. (And I say this as a sceptic about the possibility of value-free sociology.)

 

[chaochou]

I say if there's no internal causality, you don't have anything.

Simulationism is defined as prioritising causality (Internal Cause is King). Prioritising - that means subordinating other things in the game to it. It doesn't follow that a world featuring elements of causality are automatically sim.

I don't see your argument. No-one has said that in gamism or narratavism causality is absent. We're not talking about absence, but about priority.

I agree with Balesir. I can't see that you're discussing the terms as written. You seem to be redefining the terms and then arguing that a theory which relies on the original definitions doesn't stack up using yours.

 

[pawsplay]

Sorry, wrong. Here is some homework reading for you: PrimeTime Adventures, Universalis, The Pool, 3:16 and Theatrix. In no particular order.

I'm not as familiar with the others, but Theatrix at least exists in a space where narrativism is the physics of gameplay. I don't see a counter-example there.

LOL Oh, come on! This only flies in the face of over 3,000 years of drama and philosophy that has explored moral themes, despite the fact that we have no ultimate proof whether the "real" world is a "moral world" or not. That's kind of the point, in fact.

No, that is not the point. You can't tell a moral story in a world that does not answer questions.

 

[chaochou]

My interest in GNS theory is threefold. First, I'm a professional theoriser, and I like to have a theory that intellectualises my hobby.

Second, I'm a long time GM, and I like to have a theory that allows game rules and actual play experiences to be analysed and interpreted in a way that helps me GM (and the proof of the theory, for me, has been its practical payoff in this respect).

Third, a lot of discussion on ENworld presupposes a certain sort of orientation in play...

I know what you mean. I first ended up reading GNS stuff while scouting around trying to work out how to run HeroWars (which had a forum on the Forge).

I enjoyed reading the theory, digesting it, and the track it lead me down in searching out and playing new games - that has helped me a lot as a GM and player. I'm running Apocalypse World at the moment for a group which hadn't played that kind of game before - understanding the theory makes it much easier and helped me identify a few teething troubles. Now it's going great.

As for discussion, yeah, I don't think my general style of play is common here either I occasionally chip in, but I'm usually too lazy to get involved!

Out of interest, what would you say your playstyle was - in GNS lingo?

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] - I think my group play a very vanilla narrativism. I say "vanilla" for two reasons. First, we use pretty mainstream system - Rolemaster, and now 4e - which don't have very complex narrativist mechanics (and therefore give the GM more of a role in using the mechanics to push one way rather than another, I think). Second, we don't talk about this self-consciously - my players (with one exception) like to build backstory for their PCs, which I then use to build situations around, and back-and-forth in a situation-leads-to-play-leads-to-new-facts/orientation-leads-to-new-situation fashion.

A third thing that makes our narrativism pretty vanilla is that we're pretty conservative on the techniques front. THe personnel of the group has changed a bit over the years, but the general tone hasn't. We've had serious wargamers, Australasian M:TG champions, a couple of guys who dominated the Melbourne PBM scene for many years - and so tactical play of the RM or 4e variety is a big part of our game. I run the occasional flashback or dream vignette, but nothing very radical.

The GMing approach is scene framing that would be regarded as pretty soft at The Forge, I think, but probably on the harder side for D&D play. (4e is a lot easier for this than Rolemaster!)

Backstory authority is mostly with me as GM, except for those bits of the world which immediately touch on the PCs, which they have control of. (And which they can call on to advantage in a way that is done informally rather than via Fate Points or similar eg "The merchant has probably heard of my uncle who used to trade in these parts, hasn't he" or "I give the secret hand signal of my cult to see if the Elvish captain recognises it" - in the latter case, I decided that the captain didn't, but a lesser member of the Elvish band did.)

Non-railroading in action declaration and action resolution is, for me, the single most important GMing principle I follow. This is what allows for player-driven play.

As far as the thematic focus, it's the sort of stuff that can be done in mainstream fantasy in which combat is the locus of conflict - so struggles over various philosophical or political/moral ideals, plus more local/low key stuff around PC loyalties/honour.

The last campaign was a RM Oriental Adventures game. The PCs included some samurais from a defeated clan, some monks, and an animal spirit banished from the heavens. The game was mostly about loyalty and karma - the PCs ended up defying the heavens to reshape the karmic destiny of a couple of exiled gods, and thereby of the mortal world.

The current, 4e, campaign, is still evolving, but similar themes are in play about the burdens of history. The drow chaos sorcerer/demonskin adept wants to defeat Lolth and undo the sundering of the elves. There are worshippers of the Raven Queen and Vecna who have various attitudes to fate and death. And there is a dwarf PC who is focused on rising above unpropitious beginnings (in my game, the dwarves, after escaping the giants, ended up under the tutelage of minotaurs).

And just in case you're not asleep yet from boredom - I've got some actual play posts here, here, here and here.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not as familiar with the others, but Theatrix at least exists in a space where narrativism is the physics of gameplay. I don't see a counter-example there.

Where "narrativism is the physics of gameplay"?!? As chaochou said, you're redefining the terms to suit your argument - that is not a valid argumentative technique.

No, that is not the point. You can't tell a moral story in a world that does not answer questions.

It is the point, because many people do tell moral stories in "a world that does not answer questions" - this one.

 

[pawsplay]

Where "narrativism is the physics of gameplay"?!? As chaochou said, you're redefining the terms to suit your argument - that is not a valid argumentative technique.

No, I'm not redefining terms. Sorry for not being clearer. Theatrix is a game in which the the physics thereof are based on what would be considered narratively preferable.

It is the point, because many people do tell moral stories in "a world that does not answer questions" - this one.

That is still an answer to a question. In fact, given that RPGs are controlled by people with their own narrative preferencs, it requires special effort to construct a world without an implied moral justificaton. Human beings are of course justifying creatures.